| Title |
Lack of Durable Cross-Neutralizing Antibodies Against Zika Virus from Dengue Virus Infection - Volume 23, Number 5—May 2017 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2305.161630 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew H. Collins, Eileen McGowan, Ramesh Jadi, Ellen Young, Cesar A. Lopez, Ralph S. Baric, Helen M. Lazear, Aravinda M. de Silva |
| Abstract |
Cross-reactive antibodies elicited by dengue virus (DENV) infection might affect Zika virus infection and confound serologic tests. Recent data demonstrate neutralization of Zika virus by monoclonal antibodies or human serum collected early after DENV infection. Whether this finding is true in late DENV convalescence (>6 months after infection) is unknown. We studied late convalescent serum samples from persons with prior DENV or Zika virus exposure. Despite extensive cross-reactivity in IgG binding, Zika virus neutralization was not observed among primary DENV infections. We observed low-frequency (23%) Zika virus cross-neutralization in repeat DENV infections. DENV-immune persons who had Zika virus as a secondary infection had distinct populations of antibodies that neutralized DENVs and Zika virus, as shown by DENV-reactive antibody depletion experiments. These data suggest that most DENV infections do not induce durable, high-level Zika virus cross-neutralizing antibodies. Zika virus-specific antibody populations develop after Zika virus infection irrespective of prior DENV immunity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 42% |
| Germany | 2 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Thailand | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 67% |
| Scientists | 4 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 176 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 17% |
| Researcher | 29 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 14% |
| Unknown | 35 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Immunology and Microbiology | 36 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 33 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 22 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 9% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 19 | 11% |
| Unknown | 45 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,047,702
of 24,744,050 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#2,218
of 9,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,197
of 315,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#43
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,744,050 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,817 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.